Chiropractic Use by Urban and Rural Residents With Insurance Coverage

Purpose: To describe the use of chiropractic care by urban and rural residents in Washington state with musculoskeletal diagnoses, all of whom have insurance coverage for this care. The analyses investigate whether restricting the analyses to insured individuals attenuates previously reported differ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inThe Journal of rural health Vol. 25; no. 3; pp. 253 - 258
Main Authors Lind, Bonnie K, Diehr, Paula K, Grembowski, David E, Lafferty, William E
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Malden, USA Blackwell Publishing Inc 01.06.2009
Blackwell Publishing
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Purpose: To describe the use of chiropractic care by urban and rural residents in Washington state with musculoskeletal diagnoses, all of whom have insurance coverage for this care. The analyses investigate whether restricting the analyses to insured individuals attenuates previously reported differences in the prevalence of chiropractic use between urban and rural residents as well as whether differences in provider availability or patient cost-sharing explain the difference in utilization. Methods: Claims data from 237,500 claimants in 2 large insurance companies in Washington state for calendar year 2002 were analyzed, using adjusted clinical group risk adjustment for differences in disease burden and rural urban commuting area codes for rurality definition. Findings: The proportion of claimants using chiropractors was higher in rural than urban residents (44% vs 32%, P < .001). Lack of conventional providers in rural areas did not completely explain this difference, nor did differences in patient cost-sharing or demographics. Among those who used chiropractors, those in urban areas had more chiropractic visits than users of chiropractic in rural areas. Conclusions: Among insured adults, use of chiropractic care was higher in rural than in urban areas. Reasons suggested for this difference in previous reports were not borne out in this data set.
Bibliography:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-0361.2009.00227.x
istex:AD8D0C7D95FEE1406DBEC4BE9A1AA3272E5AC08C
ArticleID:JRH227
ark:/67375/WNG-DW10PVLR-0
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0890-765X
1748-0361
DOI:10.1111/j.1748-0361.2009.00227.x